At school, in "Engineering Drawing" (an O level at that time), I was introduced to "BS308", an ancient (even then) British Standard defining the notation for engineering drawings and blueprints. Then, I was simply concerned with following the standard - it was a lot later, when I became involved with IBM's methodologists that it dawned on me... BS308 is all about unambiguous communication of complex (graphical) information - "you" interpret what "I" meant in my blueprint of a bridge with confidence.
Then over 30 years later "another" BS308 comes along - this time called IEEE 1471 - a standard for conceiving of and communicating (IT systems) architectures(*) via models, views and viewpoints
I suspect my thoughts in these recent posts don't quite match the precision and comprehensiveness of the standard; I feel I've a rather simplified view of the world. For example I think my point of view (all puns intended) on notation is awry; IEEE 1471 declared it is the view which defines the notation (view type?) and that there are view instances - renderings of the model from a viewpoint drawn/documented according to the view. And I strongly believe in the notion of one model serving multiple viewpoints, rather than a viewpoint being an observation onto multiple models.
Nevertheless, I remain a staunch advocate of 1471... or I should say ISO 42010, recognising a more international adoption of this powerful standard. Oh, and yes, the "42" in 42010 is not random - it is a homage by the standard's leading advocate to "the answer to everything" (wiki the standard's "convener", Johan H Bendz)
(*) another deviation between us - I'd argue the label for the concept is not architecture, but "design"!
No comments:
Post a Comment